| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Robert Karl Stonjek" |
| Date: |
23 Aug 2004 05:37:24 PM |
| Object: |
Article: A Century of Einstein |
A Century of Einstein
Scientific American has covered Einstein's theories--and the refinements and
reactions to them--ever since scientists began to grasp the import of his
landmark 1905 papers. Read on for a sampling of our reports, some by leading
physicists of their times
By Daniel C. Schlenoff
It took several years for Scientific American, and mainstream physics for
that matter, to start mulling over the radical proposals Albert Einstein
expounded in 1905. His repudiation of the intuitive understanding of the
cosmos was hard to accept:
"In 1905, came a fundamental and (as the future historian will probably say)
an epoch-making contribution in the shape of an unassuming and dry-looking
dissertation, 'Concerning the Electro-dynamics of Moving Bodies,' by A.
Einstein, a Swiss professor of physics. It appeared in the Annalen der
Physik, the German counterpart of our Philosophical Magazine. It created no
sensation at the time. It was hardly noticed. Yet, at the present time, you
cannot open a journal devoted to physics without finding some fresh
contribution to the ever-increasing literature on the subject: Einstein's
Principle of Relativity.
--E. E. Fournier D'Albe"
Scientific American Supplement,
November 11, 1911
"But is the 'Principle of Relativity' true? That is for experiment to
decide. Its postulates have been and are now being pursued by the relentless
logic of mathematics, and they must stand or fall as the deductions thus
reached agree or conflict with experimental evidence. Just now, however, the
'Principle of Relativity' seems to be irresistibly fascinating to
mathematicians, but equally abhorrent to that host of physicists who can no
more conceive of time as a function of velocity than they can imagine space
to be curved or picture for themselves a fourth dimension."
Scientific American,
June 8, 1912
From Scientific American
http://cl.extm.us/?fe951d707365067971-fe2a1672776c0378751176
--
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
25 Aug 2004 04:53:37 AM |
|
|
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:EkuWc.4448$D7.4039@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| A Century of Einstein
| Scientific American has covered Einstein's theories--and the refinements
and
| reactions to them--ever since scientists began to grasp the import of his
| landmark 1905 papers. Read on for a sampling of our reports, some by
leading
| physicists of their times
| By Daniel C. Schlenoff
|
| It took several years for Scientific American, and mainstream physics for
| that matter, to start mulling over the radical proposals Albert Einstein
| expounded in 1905. His repudiation of the intuitive understanding of the
| cosmos was hard to accept:
|
| "In 1905, came a fundamental and (as the future historian will probably
say)
| an epoch-making contribution in the shape of an unassuming and dry-looking
| dissertation, 'Concerning the Electro-dynamics of Moving Bodies,' by A.
| Einstein, a Swiss professor of physics. It appeared in the Annalen der
| Physik, the German counterpart of our Philosophical Magazine. It created
no
| sensation at the time. It was hardly noticed. Yet, at the present time,
you
| cannot open a journal devoted to physics without finding some fresh
| contribution to the ever-increasing literature on the subject: Einstein's
| Principle of Relativity.
| --E. E. Fournier D'Albe"
| Scientific American Supplement,
| November 11, 1911
|
| "But is the 'Principle of Relativity' true? That is for experiment to
| decide. Its postulates have been and are now being pursued by the
relentless
| logic of mathematics, and they must stand or fall as the deductions thus
| reached agree or conflict with experimental evidence. Just now, however,
the
| 'Principle of Relativity' seems to be irresistibly fascinating to
| mathematicians, but equally abhorrent to that host of physicists who can
no
| more conceive of time as a function of velocity
Time is a function of velocity, and velocity is a function of time.
Something is seriously wrong with that.
Androcles
than they can imagine space
| to be curved or picture for themselves a fourth dimension."
| Scientific American,
| June 8, 1912
|
| From Scientific American
| http://cl.extm.us/?fe951d707365067971-fe2a1672776c0378751176
|
| --
| Posted by
| Robert Karl Stonjek
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
31 Aug 2004 06:50:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:37:24 GMT, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
A Century of Einstein
Scientific American has covered Einstein's theories--and the refinements
and reactions to them--ever since scientists began to grasp the import
of his landmark 1905 papers. Read on for a sampling of our reports, some
by leading physicists of their times
By Daniel C. Schlenoff
It took several years for Scientific American, and mainstream physics for
that matter, to start mulling over the radical proposals Albert Einstein
expounded in 1905. His repudiation of the intuitive understanding of the
cosmos was hard to accept:
"In 1905, came a fundamental and (as the future historian will probably say)
an epoch-making contribution in the shape of an unassuming and dry-looking
dissertation, 'Concerning the Electro-dynamics of Moving Bodies,' by A.
Einstein, a Swiss professor of physics. It appeared in the Annalen der
Physik, the German counterpart of our Philosophical Magazine. It created no
sensation at the time. It was hardly noticed. Yet, at the present time, you
cannot open a journal devoted to physics without finding some fresh
contribution to the ever-increasing literature on the subject: Einstein's
Principle of Relativity.
--E. E. Fournier D'Albe"
Scientific American Supplement,
November 11, 1911
"But is the 'Principle of Relativity' true? That is for experiment to
decide. Its postulates have been and are now being pursued by the relentless
logic of mathematics, and they must stand or fall as the deductions thus
reached agree or conflict with experimental evidence. Just now, however, the
'Principle of Relativity' seems to be irresistibly fascinating to
mathematicians, but equally abhorrent to that host of physicists who can no
more conceive of time as a function of velocity than they can imagine space
to be curved or picture for themselves a fourth dimension."
Scientific American,
June 8, 1912
From Scientific American
http://cl.extm.us/?fe951d707365067971-fe2a1672776c0378751176
"Was Einstein Right?"
"Unlike nearly all his contemporaries, Albert Einstein thought
quantum mechanics would give way to a classical theory. Some
researchers nowadays are inclined to agree -- George Musser"
Page 88...
"Creative Friction: AN ANALOGY is to Brownian motion. The
jiggling of dust motes looks random, but as Einstein himself
demonstrated, it is caused by unseen molecules following
classical laws. In fact, this analogy is. tantalizingly
tight. The equations of quantum mechanics bear an uncanny
resemblance to those of the kinetic theory of molecules and,
more generally, statistical mechanics , In some formulations,
Planck's constant, the basic parameter of quantum theory,
plays the mathematical role of temperature. It is as though
quantum mechanics describes some kind of gas or ensemble of
"molecules"-a chaotic soup of more primitive entities."
Page 89, "Scientific American" Special Issue, September 2004
Hey Freddi, :) Check out also "The String Theory Landscape" Pgs 79-87
Note them-thar vortices (Ring torroids)...
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
01 Sep 2004 11:59:07 PM |
|
|
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:ro2aj0t8ofj7hjs8cv85vv7k5060pc11mj@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:37:24 GMT, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
<stonjek@ozemail.com.au>
| wrote:
|
| > A Century of Einstein
| > Scientific American has covered Einstein's theories--and the refinements
| > and reactions to them--ever since scientists began to grasp the import
| > of his landmark 1905 papers. Read on for a sampling of our reports, some
| > by leading physicists of their times
| > By Daniel C. Schlenoff
| >
| > It took several years for Scientific American, and mainstream physics
for
| > that matter, to start mulling over the radical proposals Albert Einstein
| > expounded in 1905. His repudiation of the intuitive understanding of the
| > cosmos was hard to accept:
| >
| > "In 1905, came a fundamental and (as the future historian will probably
say)
| > an epoch-making contribution in the shape of an unassuming and
dry-looking
| > dissertation, 'Concerning the Electro-dynamics of Moving Bodies,' by A.
| > Einstein, a Swiss professor of physics. It appeared in the Annalen der
| > Physik, the German counterpart of our Philosophical Magazine. It created
no
| > sensation at the time. It was hardly noticed. Yet, at the present time,
you
| > cannot open a journal devoted to physics without finding some fresh
| > contribution to the ever-increasing literature on the subject:
Einstein's
| > Principle of Relativity.
| > --E. E. Fournier D'Albe"
| > Scientific American Supplement,
| > November 11, 1911
| >
| > "But is the 'Principle of Relativity' true? That is for experiment to
| > decide. Its postulates have been and are now being pursued by the
relentless
| > logic of mathematics, and they must stand or fall as the deductions thus
| > reached agree or conflict with experimental evidence. Just now, however,
the
| > 'Principle of Relativity' seems to be irresistibly fascinating to
| > mathematicians, but equally abhorrent to that host of physicists who can
no
| > more conceive of time as a function of velocity than they can imagine
space
| > to be curved or picture for themselves a fourth dimension."
| > Scientific American,
| > June 8, 1912
| >
| > From Scientific American
| > http://cl.extm.us/?fe951d707365067971-fe2a1672776c0378751176
|
| "Was Einstein Right?"
|
| "Unlike nearly all his contemporaries, Albert Einstein thought
| quantum mechanics would give way to a classical theory. Some
| researchers nowadays are inclined to agree -- George Musser"
Not if spacetime is being defined by quantum objects.
| Page 88...
|
| "Creative Friction: AN ANALOGY is to Brownian motion. The
| jiggling of dust motes looks random, but as Einstein himself
| demonstrated, it is caused by unseen molecules following
| classical laws. In fact, this analogy is. tantalizingly
| tight. The equations of quantum mechanics bear an uncanny
| resemblance to those of the kinetic theory of molecules and,
| more generally, statistical mechanics , In some formulations,
| Planck's constant, the basic parameter of quantum theory,
| plays the mathematical role of temperature. It is as though
| quantum mechanics describes some kind of gas or ensemble of
| "molecules"-a chaotic soup of more primitive entities."
Yep, that would be the quantum vacuum.
| Page 89, "Scientific American" Special Issue, September 2004
|
| Hey Freddi, :) Check out also "The String Theory Landscape" Pgs 79-87
| Note them-thar vortices (Ring torroids)...
Yeah, but it is much more complex than that. When you get down to where
spacetime is being defined, there really could be an infinite number of
small curled up dimensions. But that is not extraordinary.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
02 Sep 2004 08:45:13 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:59:07 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:ro2aj0t8ofj7hjs8cv85vv7k5060pc11mj@4ax.com...
[Snip...]
|> From Scientific American
|> http://cl.extm.us/?fe951d707365067971-fe2a1672776c0378751176
|
| "Was Einstein Right?"
|
| "Unlike nearly all his contemporaries, Albert Einstein thought
| quantum mechanics would give way to a classical theory. Some
| researchers nowadays are inclined to agree -- George Musser"
Not if spacetime is being defined by quantum objects.
Yes, even when so-called space-time is defined by 'quantum objects'.
Those quantum objects aren't magic... Their quantized states and
propertie come from somewhere...
| Page 88...
|
| "Creative Friction: AN ANALOGY is to Brownian motion. The
| jiggling of dust motes looks random, but as Einstein himself
| demonstrated, it is caused by unseen molecules following
| classical laws. In fact, this analogy is. tantalizingly
| tight. The equations of quantum mechanics bear an uncanny
| resemblance to those of the kinetic theory of molecules and,
| more generally, statistical mechanics , In some formulations,
| Planck's constant, the basic parameter of quantum theory,
| plays the mathematical role of temperature. It is as though
| quantum mechanics describes some kind of gas or ensemble of
| "molecules"-a chaotic soup of more primitive entities."
Yep, that would be the quantum vacuum.
Yes, and as stated above, the behavior, quantization, and properties
aren't from magic. Just as the jiggling of dust isn't magical.
| Page 89, "Scientific American" Special Issue, September 2004
|
| Hey Freddi, :) Check out also "The String Theory Landscape" Pgs 79-87
| Note them-thar vortices (Ring torroids)...
Yeah, but it is much more complex than that. When you get down to
where spacetime is being defined, there really could be an infinite
number of small curled up dimensions.
No sarcasm intended but, please explain in plain narrative English what
these dimensions physically represent & are.
Paul Stowe
But that is not extraordinary.
Not when we resolve the meaning of 'dimension' :)
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
03 Sep 2004 01:57:44 AM |
|
|
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:gaifj0tltt383v1r2nbcisn8raden19g3j@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:59:07 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com>
wrote:
|
| >"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
| >news:ro2aj0t8ofj7hjs8cv85vv7k5060pc11mj@4ax.com...
|
| [Snip...]
|
| >|> From Scientific American
| >|> http://cl.extm.us/?fe951d707365067971-fe2a1672776c0378751176
| >|
| >| "Was Einstein Right?"
| >|
| >| "Unlike nearly all his contemporaries, Albert Einstein thought
| >| quantum mechanics would give way to a classical theory. Some
| >| researchers nowadays are inclined to agree -- George Musser"
| >
| > Not if spacetime is being defined by quantum objects.
|
| Yes, even when so-called space-time is defined by 'quantum objects'.
| Those quantum objects aren't magic... Their quantized states and
| propertie come from somewhere...
If spacetime is being defined by these quantum objects, then we simply just
don't know what defines them. For sure it is not magic, but simply our
ignorance of not being able to "see" that small. "Ultra-mundane" they be
for sure.
| >| Page 88...
| >|
| >| "Creative Friction: AN ANALOGY is to Brownian motion. The
| >| jiggling of dust motes looks random, but as Einstein himself
| >| demonstrated, it is caused by unseen molecules following
| >| classical laws. In fact, this analogy is. tantalizingly
| >| tight. The equations of quantum mechanics bear an uncanny
| >| resemblance to those of the kinetic theory of molecules and,
| >| more generally, statistical mechanics , In some formulations,
| >| Planck's constant, the basic parameter of quantum theory,
| >| plays the mathematical role of temperature. It is as though
| >| quantum mechanics describes some kind of gas or ensemble of
| >| "molecules"-a chaotic soup of more primitive entities."
| >
| > Yep, that would be the quantum vacuum.
|
| Yes, and as stated above, the behavior, quantization, and properties
| aren't from magic. Just as the jiggling of dust isn't magical.
I agree with that. See above.
| >| Page 89, "Scientific American" Special Issue, September 2004
| >|
| >| Hey Freddi, :) Check out also "The String Theory Landscape" Pgs 79-87
| >| Note them-thar vortices (Ring torroids)...
| >
| > Yeah, but it is much more complex than that. When you get down to
| > where spacetime is being defined, there really could be an infinite
| > number of small curled up dimensions.
|
| No sarcasm intended but, please explain in plain narrative English what
| these dimensions physically represent & are.
I think if I could do that, I might be on my way to better places. ;-) You
can't think of little hard balls or whatever for the tiny quantum objects
that make all of this. Especially if they are in fact defining spacetime.
Do they have some kind of form? Maybe. Do they have a tiny mass. Maybe?
I actually got to thinking more about this tiny mass situation that you
mention and if we make a gravitation coupling "constant" like so,
G*mass^2/hbar*c = alpha_G, very small dimensionless number in cgs units,
and I think I have seen somewhere that the relative strength of gravity to
strong charge is 10^-42, when plugging that in, we get a mass quantum that
is about 12 MeV/c^2. Way too big. If we plugin 1 eV/c^2, we get about
10^-57 for the coupling "constant". Anyways, we can see here that vacuum
charge is once again involved in a coupling constant. The real deal for
gravity maybe should be G*m_q^2 with m_q being a mass quantum. I am still
trying to figure out why you come close to what the electron neutrino mass
might be in your derivation. Well, we know if the ultra-mundane particles
have a tiny mass, it for sure should be less than the electron neutrino.
If you plugin Planck mass above, alpha_G becomes 1 and we know that ain't
right.
Well, maybe they are little hard balls with a tiny tiny mass. But if they
are, I still think they are going to be string-like and cloud-like when
"cranked up".
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
04 Sep 2004 09:41:23 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 23:57:44 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:gaifj0tltt383v1r2nbcisn8raden19g3j@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:59:07 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com>
wrote:
|
| >"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
| >news:ro2aj0t8ofj7hjs8cv85vv7k5060pc11mj@4ax.com...
|
| [Snip...]
|
|>|> From Scientific American
|>|> http://cl.extm.us/?fe951d707365067971-fe2a1672776c0378751176
|>|
|>| "Was Einstein Right?"
|>|
|>| "Unlike nearly all his contemporaries, Albert Einstein thought
|>| quantum mechanics would give way to a classical theory. Some
|>| researchers nowadays are inclined to agree -- George Musser"
|>
|> Not if spacetime is being defined by quantum objects.
|
| Yes, even when so-called space-time is defined by 'quantum objects'.
| Those quantum objects aren't magic... Their quantized states and
| propertie come from somewhere...
If spacetime is being defined by these quantum objects, then we simply
just don't know what defines them. For sure it is not magic, but simply
our ignorance of not being able to "see" that small. "Ultra-mundane"
they be for sure.
And because of who & what we are (made up of that stuff) we never will.
The trick my friend is to note behaviors that we CAN observe and match
them to those we can't. We know that the 'quantum objects':
- are quantized
- are discrete
- behave as oscillators
- have spin
- have angular momentum
- have momentum/energy
so now the trick is to find out what else exhibit similar characteristics.
This is why I have said, based upon the Faraday/Maxwell/Helmholtz/Kelvin
coupled vortices (knots) model if a magnetic monopole is found, the
whole model falls. It is a distinct prediction that magnetism is a
manifestation of the physical circulation of the fluidic medium. As
such, there must exist both a clockwise & counterclockwise pattern
depending only upon the orientation. These patterns represent the
'poles'. Thus there must 'physically' always be, a dipole associated
with circulation. The reason Div b = 0 and why we must have a spin
moment j
|>| Page 88...
|>|
|>| "Creative Friction: AN ANALOGY is to Brownian motion. The
|>| jiggling of dust motes looks random, but as Einstein himself
|>| demonstrated, it is caused by unseen molecules following
|>| classical laws. In fact, this analogy is. tantalizingly
|>| tight. The equations of quantum mechanics bear an uncanny
|>| resemblance to those of the kinetic theory of molecules and,
|>| more generally, statistical mechanics , In some formulations,
|>| Planck's constant, the basic parameter of quantum theory,
|>| plays the mathematical role of temperature. It is as though
|>| quantum mechanics describes some kind of gas or ensemble of
|>| "molecules"-a chaotic soup of more primitive entities."
|>
|> Yep, that would be the quantum vacuum.
|
| Yes, and as stated above, the behavior, quantization, and properties
| aren't from magic. Just as the jiggling of dust isn't magical.
I agree with that. See above.
What convinced me all those years back now that Maxwell 'got it right'
was the following chain of evidence.
1. Ring vortices have all the quantum restrictions,
a) they have polloidal 'spin'
b) they have torroidal 'angular momentum' (separate FROM spin)
c) Based upon the circulation modal of spin/angular momentum
they will either be attactive or repulsive to each other
(This can lead directly to Pauli's exclusion principle)
d) They can & will have wave-like characteristics
e) The standing waves in a vortex ring MUST be integral values
of the radii (both polloidal & torroidal)
2. Kelvin, long before superfluids were known to have the a transverse
waves, mathematically demonstrated that in an inviscid (super) fluid
coupled vortex lattice small amplitude linear disurbances propagated
as transverse waves having the same mathematical characteristics
as light.
3. Vortices are a necessary mathematical component of all modern
treatments of quantum fluids.
4. Kelvin's circulation Theorem & conservation of angular momentum
5. Localized Lorentz covariance is a natural requirement of any
particulate media
There is more, but this should be quite enough for I think most
'objective' rational human beings.
|>| Page 89, "Scientific American" Special Issue, September 2004
|>|
|>| Hey Freddi, :) Check out also "The String Theory Landscape" Pgs 79-87
|>| Note them-thar vortices (Ring torroids)...
| >
| > Yeah, but it is much more complex than that. When you get down to
| > where spacetime is being defined, there really could be an infinite
| > number of small curled up dimensions.
|
| No sarcasm intended but, please explain in plain narrative English what
| these dimensions physically represent & are.
I think if I could do that, I might be on my way to better places. ;-)
You see Freddi, they talk about 10 dimensions. The usual 4 (linear
x,y,z,t) and 6 extra 'curled' compacted. These, physically, 'probably'
represent the momentum in the spin & angular circulations of the rings.
You can't think of little hard balls ...
I don't think of the ultra-mundane aetherons as 'the quantum objects'
I think in terms of each quantum object is made up of a sea of the
ultra-mundane aetherons. The etherons could be 'hard' or ultimately
'soft'. The need only be nearly perfectly elastic and contain no sub
media (fields) of their own.
... or whatever for the tiny quantum objects that make all of this.
Especially if they are in fact defining spacetime. Do they have some
kind of form? Maybe. Do they have a tiny mass. Maybe?
I actually got to thinking more about this tiny mass situation that you
mention and if we make a gravitation coupling "constant" like so,
G*mass^2/hbar*c = alpha_G, very small dimensionless number in cgs units,
and I think I have seen somewhere that the relative strength of gravity to
strong charge is 10^-42, when plugging that in, we get a mass quantum that
is about 12 MeV/c^2. Way too big. If we plugin 1 eV/c^2, we get about
10^-57 for the coupling "constant". Anyways, we can see here that vacuum
charge is once again involved in a coupling constant. The real deal for
gravity maybe should be G*m_q^2 with m_q being a mass quantum. I am still
trying to figure out why you come close to what the electron neutrino mass
might be in your derivation. Well, we know if the ultra-mundane particles
have a tiny mass, it for sure should be less than the electron neutrino.
Well, the the fluid model of Maxwell charge results from the compressibility
of the medium. The medium's characteristic Action parameter defines this
and all else. This Planck's Constant is the most fundamental (which in turn
depends on the aetheron's intrinic momentum, thus c...) of the medium's
properties.
If you plugin Planck mass above, alpha_G becomes 1 and we know that ain't
right.
Well, maybe they are little hard balls with a tiny tiny mass. But if they
are, I still think they are going to be string-like and cloud-like when
"cranked up".
Faraday/Maxwell/Helmholtz/Kelvin's vortices :)
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
04 Sep 2004 01:00:10 PM |
|
|
Paul Stowe:
The trick my friend is to note behaviors that we CAN observe and match
them to those we can't. We know that the 'quantum objects':
- are quantized
- are discrete
- behave as oscillators
- have spin
- have angular momentum
- have momentum/energy
so now the trick is to find out what else exhibit similar characteristics.
This is why I have said, based upon the Faraday/Maxwell/Helmholtz/Kelvin
coupled vortices (knots) model if a magnetic monopole is found, the
whole model falls. It is a distinct prediction that magnetism is a
manifestation of the physical circulation of the fluidic medium. As
such, there must exist both a clockwise & counterclockwise pattern
depending only upon the orientation. These patterns represent the
'poles'. Thus there must 'physically' always be, a dipole associated
with circulation. The reason Div b = 0 and why we must have a spin
moment j
You don't know what you are talking about. ``Circulation'' is not a
dipole moment. It's an angular momentum. If you think otherwise, write
down the equations and we'll examine the symmetries.
[...]
I agree with that. See above.
What convinced me all those years back now that Maxwell 'got it right'
was the following chain of evidence.
1. Ring vortices have all the quantum restrictions,
a) they have polloidal 'spin'
b) they have torroidal 'angular momentum' (separate FROM spin)
c) Based upon the circulation modal of spin/angular momentum
they will either be attactive or repulsive to each other
(This can lead directly to Pauli's exclusion principle)
d) They can & will have wave-like characteristics
e) The standing waves in a vortex ring MUST be integral values
of the radii (both polloidal & torroidal)
Write down the equations and prove those assertions.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
04 Sep 2004 02:04:31 PM |
|
|
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:haijj0lljnttcsgph334n4qk9jbt0h3f7u@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 23:57:44 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com>
wrote:
|
| >"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
| >news:gaifj0tltt383v1r2nbcisn8raden19g3j@4ax.com...
| >| On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:59:07 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com>
| >wrote:
| >|
| >| >"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
| >| >news:ro2aj0t8ofj7hjs8cv85vv7k5060pc11mj@4ax.com...
| >|
| >| [Snip...]
| >|
| >|>|> From Scientific American
| >|>|> http://cl.extm.us/?fe951d707365067971-fe2a1672776c0378751176
| >|>|
| >|>| "Was Einstein Right?"
| >|>|
| >|>| "Unlike nearly all his contemporaries, Albert Einstein thought
| >|>| quantum mechanics would give way to a classical theory. Some
| >|>| researchers nowadays are inclined to agree -- George Musser"
| >|>
| >|> Not if spacetime is being defined by quantum objects.
| >|
| >| Yes, even when so-called space-time is defined by 'quantum objects'.
| >| Those quantum objects aren't magic... Their quantized states and
| >| propertie come from somewhere...
| >
| > If spacetime is being defined by these quantum objects, then we simply
| > just don't know what defines them. For sure it is not magic, but simply
| > our ignorance of not being able to "see" that small. "Ultra-mundane"
| > they be for sure.
|
| And because of who & what we are (made up of that stuff) we never will.
|
| The trick my friend is to note behaviors that we CAN observe and match
| them to those we can't. We know that the 'quantum objects':
|
| - are quantized
| - are discrete
| - behave as oscillators
| - have spin
| - have angular momentum
| - have momentum/energy
|
| so now the trick is to find out what else exhibit similar
characteristics.
|
| This is why I have said, based upon the Faraday/Maxwell/Helmholtz/Kelvin
| coupled vortices (knots) model if a magnetic monopole is found, the
| whole model falls. It is a distinct prediction that magnetism is a
| manifestation of the physical circulation of the fluidic medium. As
| such, there must exist both a clockwise & counterclockwise pattern
| depending only upon the orientation. These patterns represent the
| 'poles'. Thus there must 'physically' always be, a dipole associated
| with circulation. The reason Div b = 0 and why we must have a spin
| moment j
|
| >|>| Page 88...
| >|>|
| >|>| "Creative Friction: AN ANALOGY is to Brownian motion. The
| >|>| jiggling of dust motes looks random, but as Einstein himself
| >|>| demonstrated, it is caused by unseen molecules following
| >|>| classical laws. In fact, this analogy is. tantalizingly
| >|>| tight. The equations of quantum mechanics bear an uncanny
| >|>| resemblance to those of the kinetic theory of molecules and,
| >|>| more generally, statistical mechanics , In some formulations,
| >|>| Planck's constant, the basic parameter of quantum theory,
| >|>| plays the mathematical role of temperature. It is as though
| >|>| quantum mechanics describes some kind of gas or ensemble of
| >|>| "molecules"-a chaotic soup of more primitive entities."
| >|>
| >|> Yep, that would be the quantum vacuum.
| >|
| >| Yes, and as stated above, the behavior, quantization, and properties
| >| aren't from magic. Just as the jiggling of dust isn't magical.
| >
| > I agree with that. See above.
|
| What convinced me all those years back now that Maxwell 'got it right'
| was the following chain of evidence.
|
| 1. Ring vortices have all the quantum restrictions,
|
| a) they have polloidal 'spin'
| b) they have torroidal 'angular momentum' (separate FROM spin)
| c) Based upon the circulation modal of spin/angular momentum
| they will either be attactive or repulsive to each other
| (This can lead directly to Pauli's exclusion principle)
| d) They can & will have wave-like characteristics
| e) The standing waves in a vortex ring MUST be integral values
| of the radii (both polloidal & torroidal)
|
| 2. Kelvin, long before superfluids were known to have the a transverse
| waves, mathematically demonstrated that in an inviscid (super) fluid
| coupled vortex lattice small amplitude linear disurbances propagated
| as transverse waves having the same mathematical characteristics
| as light.
|
| 3. Vortices are a necessary mathematical component of all modern
| treatments of quantum fluids.
|
| 4. Kelvin's circulation Theorem & conservation of angular momentum
|
| 5. Localized Lorentz covariance is a natural requirement of any
| particulate media
|
| There is more, but this should be quite enough for I think most
| 'objective' rational human beings.
|
| >|>| Page 89, "Scientific American" Special Issue, September 2004
| >|>|
| >|>| Hey Freddi, :) Check out also "The String Theory Landscape" Pgs
79-87
| >|>| Note them-thar vortices (Ring torroids)...
| >| >
| >| > Yeah, but it is much more complex than that. When you get down to
| >| > where spacetime is being defined, there really could be an infinite
| >| > number of small curled up dimensions.
| >|
| >| No sarcasm intended but, please explain in plain narrative English
what
| >| these dimensions physically represent & are.
| >
| > I think if I could do that, I might be on my way to better places. ;-)
|
| You see Freddi, they talk about 10 dimensions. The usual 4 (linear
| x,y,z,t) and 6 extra 'curled' compacted. These, physically, 'probably'
| represent the momentum in the spin & angular circulations of the rings.
|
| > You can't think of little hard balls ...
|
| I don't think of the ultra-mundane aetherons as 'the quantum objects'
|
| I think in terms of each quantum object is made up of a sea of the
| ultra-mundane aetherons. The etherons could be 'hard' or ultimately
| 'soft'. The need only be nearly perfectly elastic and contain no sub
| media (fields) of their own.
Yes I know that is what you think and IMHO, this is where you are going
wrong. I have been trying to show you that an elementary quantum object
doesn't need to be a "sea of the ultra-mundane aetherons". It only requires
one to make an elementary quantum object in conjunction with the interaction
with and equilibrium of the quantum vacuum.
| > ... or whatever for the tiny quantum objects that make all of this.
| > Especially if they are in fact defining spacetime. Do they have some
| > kind of form? Maybe. Do they have a tiny mass. Maybe?
| > I actually got to thinking more about this tiny mass situation that you
| > mention and if we make a gravitation coupling "constant" like so,
| >
| > G*mass^2/hbar*c = alpha_G, very small dimensionless number in cgs units,
| >
| > and I think I have seen somewhere that the relative strength of gravity
to
| > strong charge is 10^-42, when plugging that in, we get a mass quantum
that
| > is about 12 MeV/c^2. Way too big. If we plugin 1 eV/c^2, we get about
| > 10^-57 for the coupling "constant". Anyways, we can see here that
vacuum
| > charge is once again involved in a coupling constant. The real deal for
| > gravity maybe should be G*m_q^2 with m_q being a mass quantum. I am
still
| > trying to figure out why you come close to what the electron neutrino
mass
| > might be in your derivation. Well, we know if the ultra-mundane
particles
| > have a tiny mass, it for sure should be less than the electron neutrino.
|
| Well, the the fluid model of Maxwell charge results from the
compressibility
| of the medium. The medium's characteristic Action parameter defines this
| and all else. This Planck's Constant is the most fundamental (which in
turn
| depends on the aetheron's intrinic momentum, thus c...) of the medium's
| properties.
|
| > If you plugin Planck mass above, alpha_G becomes 1 and we know that
ain't
| > right.
| >
| > Well, maybe they are little hard balls with a tiny tiny mass. But if
they
| > are, I still think they are going to be string-like and cloud-like when
| > "cranked up".
|
| Faraday/Maxwell/Helmholtz/Kelvin's vortices :)
Sure, but apply what quantum theory is giving us clues about to the vortices
then it is not a stretch to see that only one ultra-mundane particle is
required for elementary fermions. The quantum vacuum is what determines
which ultra-mundane particles can be which elementary fermions. There is no
difference between a "bare" electron and a bare quark or bare neutrino. The
geometry of the vacuum coupled oscillators determines what they can be. It
is not too hard in this picture to see why electrons are stable. If I can
get the exact geometry figured out then it shouldn't be too hard to show why
protons are stable.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
04 Sep 2004 09:26:58 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 12:04:31 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:haijj0lljnttcsgph334n4qk9jbt0h3f7u@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 23:57:44 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com>
wrote:
|
| >"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
| >news:gaifj0tltt383v1r2nbcisn8raden19g3j@4ax.com...
|>| On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:59:07 -0700, "FrediFizzx" ><fredifizzx@hotmail.com>
|>| wrote:
|>|
|>| >"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
|>| >news:ro2aj0t8ofj7hjs8cv85vv7k5060pc11mj@4ax.com...
|>|
|>| [Snip...]
|>|
|>|>|> From Scientific American
|>|>|> http://cl.extm.us/?fe951d707365067971-fe2a1672776c0378751176
|>|>|
|>|>| "Was Einstein Right?"
|>|>|
|>|>| "Unlike nearly all his contemporaries, Albert Einstein thought
|>|>| quantum mechanics would give way to a classical theory. Some
|>|>| researchers nowadays are inclined to agree -- George Musser"
|>|>
|>|> Not if spacetime is being defined by quantum objects.
|>|
|>| Yes, even when so-called space-time is defined by 'quantum objects'.
|>| Those quantum objects aren't magic... Their quantized states and
|>| propertie come from somewhere...
|>
|> If spacetime is being defined by these quantum objects, then we simply
|> just don't know what defines them. For sure it is not magic, but simply
|> our ignorance of not being able to "see" that small. "Ultra-mundane"
|> they be for sure.
|
| And because of who & what we are (made up of that stuff) we never will.
|
| The trick my friend is to note behaviors that we CAN observe and match
| them to those we can't. We know that the 'quantum objects':
|
| - are quantized
| - are discrete
| - behave as oscillators
| - have spin
| - have angular momentum
| - have momentum/energy
|
| so now the trick is to find out what else exhibit similar characteristics.
|
| This is why I have said, based upon the Faraday/Maxwell/Helmholtz/Kelvin
| coupled vortices (knots) model if a magnetic monopole is found, the
| whole model falls. It is a distinct prediction that magnetism is a
| manifestation of the physical circulation of the fluidic medium. As
| such, there must exist both a clockwise & counterclockwise pattern
| depending only upon the orientation. These patterns represent the
| 'poles'. Thus there must 'physically' always be, a dipole associated
| with circulation. The reason Div b = 0 and why we must have a spin
| moment j
|
|>|>| Page 88...
|>|>|
|>|>| "Creative Friction: AN ANALOGY is to Brownian motion. The
|>|>| jiggling of dust motes looks random, but as Einstein himself
|>|>| demonstrated, it is caused by unseen molecules following
|>|>| classical laws. In fact, this analogy is. tantalizingly
|>|>| tight. The equations of quantum mechanics bear an uncanny
|>|>| resemblance to those of the kinetic theory of molecules and,
|>|>| more generally, statistical mechanics , In some formulations,
|>|>| Planck's constant, the basic parameter of quantum theory,
|>|>| plays the mathematical role of temperature. It is as though
|>|>| quantum mechanics describes some kind of gas or ensemble of
|>|>| "molecules"-a chaotic soup of more primitive entities."
|>|>
|>|> Yep, that would be the quantum vacuum.
|>|
|>| Yes, and as stated above, the behavior, quantization, and properties
|>| aren't from magic. Just as the jiggling of dust isn't magical.
|>
|> I agree with that. See above.
|
| What convinced me all those years back now that Maxwell 'got it right'
| was the following chain of evidence.
|
| 1. Ring vortices have all the quantum restrictions,
|
| a) they have polloidal 'spin'
| b) they have torroidal 'angular momentum' (separate FROM spin)
| c) Based upon the circulation modal of spin/angular momentum
| they will either be attactive or repulsive to each other
| (This can lead directly to Pauli's exclusion principle)
| d) They can & will have wave-like characteristics
| e) The standing waves in a vortex ring MUST be integral values
| of the radii (both polloidal & torroidal)
|
| 2. Kelvin, long before superfluids were known to have the a transverse
| waves, mathematically demonstrated that in an inviscid (super) fluid
| coupled vortex lattice small amplitude linear disurbances propagated
| as transverse waves having the same mathematical characteristics
| as light.
|
| 3. Vortices are a necessary mathematical component of all modern
| treatments of quantum fluids.
|
| 4. Kelvin's circulation Theorem & conservation of angular momentum
|
| 5. Localized Lorentz covariance is a natural requirement of any
| particulate media
|
| There is more, but this should be quite enough for I think most
| 'objective' rational human beings.
|
|>|>| Page 89, "Scientific American" Special Issue, September 2004
|>|>|
|>|>| Hey Freddi, :) Check out also "The String Theory Landscape" Pgs 79-87
|>|>| Note them-thar vortices (Ring torroids)...
|>|>
|>|> Yeah, but it is much more complex than that. When you get down to
|>|> where spacetime is being defined, there really could be an infinite
|>|> number of small curled up dimensions.
|>|
|>| No sarcasm intended but, please explain in plain narrative English what
|>| these dimensions physically represent & are.
|>
|> I think if I could do that, I might be on my way to better places. ;-)
|
| You see Freddi, they talk about 10 dimensions. The usual 4 (linear
| x,y,z,t) and 6 extra 'curled' compacted. These, physically, 'probably'
| represent the momentum in the spin & angular circulations of the rings.
|
|> You can't think of little hard balls ...
|
| I don't think of the ultra-mundane aetherons as 'the quantum objects'
|
| I think in terms of each quantum object is made up of a sea of the
| ultra-mundane aetherons. The aetherons could be 'hard' or ultimately
| 'soft'. The need only be nearly perfectly elastic and contain no sub
| media (fields) of their own.
Yes I know that is what you think and IMHO, this is where you are going
wrong. I have been trying to show you that an elementary quantum object
doesn't need to be a "sea of the ultra-mundane aetherons". It only
requires one to make an elementary quantum object in conjunction with the
interaction with and equilibrium of the quantum vacuum.
And the quantization & properties come from where?
See Ilja Schmelzer concepts
http://ilja-schmelzer.de/GET/
I have always thought that matter is a defect of some sort, just haven't
figured it out. Ilja may well be on the right track.
|> ... or whatever for the tiny quantum objects that make all of this.
|> Especially if they are in fact defining spacetime. Do they have some
|> kind of form? Maybe. Do they have a tiny mass. Maybe?
|> I actually got to thinking more about this tiny mass situation that you
|> mention and if we make a gravitation coupling "constant" like so,
|>
|> G*mass^2/hbar*c = alpha_G, very small dimensionless number in cgs units,
|>
|> and I think I have seen somewhere that the relative strength of gravity
|> to strong charge is 10^-42, when plugging that in, we get a mass quantum
|> that is about 12 MeV/c^2. Way too big. If we plugin 1 eV/c^2, we get about
|> 10^-57 for the coupling "constant". Anyways, we can see here that
|> vacuum charge is once again involved in a coupling constant. The real deal for
|> gravity maybe should be G*m_q^2 with m_q being a mass quantum. I am
|> still trying to figure out why you come close to what the electron neutrino
|> mass might be in your derivation. Well, we know if the ultra-mundane
|> particles have a tiny mass, it for sure should be less than the electron neutrino.
|
| Well, the the fluid model of Maxwell charge results from the compressibility
| of the medium. The medium's characteristic Action parameter defines this
| and all else. This Planck's Constant is the most fundamental (which in turn
| depends on the aetheron's intrinic momentum, thus c...) of the medium's
| properties.
|
|> If you plugin Planck mass above, alpha_G becomes 1 and we know that ain't
|> right.
|>
|> Well, maybe they are little hard balls with a tiny tiny mass. But if they
|> are, I still think they are going to be string-like and cloud-like when
|> "cranked up".
|
| Faraday/Maxwell/Helmholtz/Kelvin's vortices :)
Sure, but apply what quantum theory is giving us clues about to the vortices
then it is not a stretch to see that only one ultra-mundane particle is
required for elementary fermions. The quantum vacuum is what determines
which ultra-mundane particles can be which elementary fermions. There is no
difference between a "bare" electron and a bare quark or bare neutrino. The
geometry of the vacuum coupled oscillators determines what they can be. It
is not too hard in this picture to see why electrons are stable. If I can
get the exact geometry figured out then it shouldn't be too hard to show why
protons are stable.
So, in your model you need different particles to get different fermions. I
don't think that meets Ockham's Razor. But, I have no model for matter, Ilja
seems to though.
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
05 Sep 2004 12:06:47 AM |
|
|
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:63tkj012r02ds51hpeeq5hm01lbb2amu3i@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 12:04:31 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com>
wrote:
|
| >"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
| >news:haijj0lljnttcsgph334n4qk9jbt0h3f7u@4ax.com...
| >| On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 23:57:44 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com>
| >wrote:
| >|
| >| >"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
| >| >news:gaifj0tltt383v1r2nbcisn8raden19g3j@4ax.com...
| >|>| On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:59:07 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com>
| >|>| wrote:
| >|>|
| >|>| >"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
| >|>| >news:ro2aj0t8ofj7hjs8cv85vv7k5060pc11mj@4ax.com...
| >|>|
| >|>| [Snip...]
| >|>|
| >|>|>|> From Scientific American
| >|>|>|> http://cl.extm.us/?fe951d707365067971-fe2a1672776c0378751176
| >|>|>|
| >|>|>| "Was Einstein Right?"
| >|>|>|
| >|>|>| "Unlike nearly all his contemporaries, Albert Einstein
thought
| >|>|>| quantum mechanics would give way to a classical theory. Some
| >|>|>| researchers nowadays are inclined to agree -- George Musser"
| >|>|>
| >|>|> Not if spacetime is being defined by quantum objects.
| >|>|
| >|>| Yes, even when so-called space-time is defined by 'quantum objects'.
| >|>| Those quantum objects aren't magic... Their quantized states and
| >|>| propertie come from somewhere...
| >|>
| >|> If spacetime is being defined by these quantum objects, then we simply
| >|> just don't know what defines them. For sure it is not magic, but
simply
| >|> our ignorance of not being able to "see" that small. "Ultra-mundane"
| >|> they be for sure.
| >|
| >| And because of who & what we are (made up of that stuff) we never
will.
| >|
| >| The trick my friend is to note behaviors that we CAN observe and match
| >| them to those we can't. We know that the 'quantum objects':
| >|
| >| - are quantized
| >| - are discrete
| >| - behave as oscillators
| >| - have spin
| >| - have angular momentum
| >| - have momentum/energy
| >|
| >| so now the trick is to find out what else exhibit similar
characteristics.
| >|
| >| This is why I have said, based upon the
Faraday/Maxwell/Helmholtz/Kelvin
| >| coupled vortices (knots) model if a magnetic monopole is found, the
| >| whole model falls. It is a distinct prediction that magnetism is a
| >| manifestation of the physical circulation of the fluidic medium. As
| >| such, there must exist both a clockwise & counterclockwise pattern
| >| depending only upon the orientation. These patterns represent the
| >| 'poles'. Thus there must 'physically' always be, a dipole associated
| >| with circulation. The reason Div b = 0 and why we must have a spin
| >| moment j
| >|
| >|>|>| Page 88...
| >|>|>|
| >|>|>| "Creative Friction: AN ANALOGY is to Brownian motion. The
| >|>|>| jiggling of dust motes looks random, but as Einstein himself
| >|>|>| demonstrated, it is caused by unseen molecules following
| >|>|>| classical laws. In fact, this analogy is. tantalizingly
| >|>|>| tight. The equations of quantum mechanics bear an uncanny
| >|>|>| resemblance to those of the kinetic theory of molecules and,
| >|>|>| more generally, statistical mechanics , In some
formulations,
| >|>|>| Planck's constant, the basic parameter of quantum theory,
| >|>|>| plays the mathematical role of temperature. It is as though
| >|>|>| quantum mechanics describes some kind of gas or ensemble of
| >|>|>| "molecules"-a chaotic soup of more primitive entities."
| >|>|>
| >|>|> Yep, that would be the quantum vacuum.
| >|>|
| >|>| Yes, and as stated above, the behavior, quantization, and properties
| >|>| aren't from magic. Just as the jiggling of dust isn't magical.
| >|>
| >|> I agree with that. See above.
| >|
| >| What convinced me all those years back now that Maxwell 'got it right'
| >| was the following chain of evidence.
| >|
| >| 1. Ring vortices have all the quantum restrictions,
| >|
| >| a) they have polloidal 'spin'
| >| b) they have torroidal 'angular momentum' (separate FROM spin)
| >| c) Based upon the circulation modal of spin/angular momentum
| >| they will either be attactive or repulsive to each other
| >| (This can lead directly to Pauli's exclusion principle)
| >| d) They can & will have wave-like characteristics
| >| e) The standing waves in a vortex ring MUST be integral values
| >| of the radii (both polloidal & torroidal)
| >|
| >| 2. Kelvin, long before superfluids were known to have the a transverse
| >| waves, mathematically demonstrated that in an inviscid (super)
fluid
| >| coupled vortex lattice small amplitude linear disurbances
propagated
| >| as transverse waves having the same mathematical characteristics
| >| as light.
| >|
| >| 3. Vortices are a necessary mathematical component of all modern
| >| treatments of quantum fluids.
| >|
| >| 4. Kelvin's circulation Theorem & conservation of angular momentum
| >|
| >| 5. Localized Lorentz covariance is a natural requirement of any
| >| particulate media
| >|
| >| There is more, but this should be quite enough for I think most
| >| 'objective' rational human beings.
| >|
| >|>|>| Page 89, "Scientific American" Special Issue, September 2004
| >|>|>|
| >|>|>| Hey Freddi, :) Check out also "The String Theory Landscape" Pgs
79-87
| >|>|>| Note them-thar vortices (Ring torroids)...
| >|>|>
| >|>|> Yeah, but it is much more complex than that. When you get down to
| >|>|> where spacetime is being defined, there really could be an infinite
| >|>|> number of small curled up dimensions.
| >|>|
| >|>| No sarcasm intended but, please explain in plain narrative English
what
| >|>| these dimensions physically represent & are.
| >|>
| >|> I think if I could do that, I might be on my way to better places. ;-)
| >|
| >| You see Freddi, they talk about 10 dimensions. The usual 4 (linear
| >| x,y,z,t) and 6 extra 'curled' compacted. These, physically,
'probably'
| >| represent the momentum in the spin & angular circulations of the
rings.
| >|
| >|> You can't think of little hard balls ...
| >|
| >| I don't think of the ultra-mundane aetherons as 'the quantum objects'
| >|
| >| I think in terms of each quantum object is made up of a sea of the
| >| ultra-mundane aetherons. The aetherons could be 'hard' or ultimately
| >| 'soft'. The need only be nearly perfectly elastic and contain no sub
| >| media (fields) of their own.
| >
| > Yes I know that is what you think and IMHO, this is where you are going
| > wrong. I have been trying to show you that an elementary quantum object
| > doesn't need to be a "sea of the ultra-mundane aetherons". It only
| > requires one to make an elementary quantum object in conjunction with
the
| > interaction with and equilibrium of the quantum vacuum.
|
| And the quantization & properties come from where?
The quantization and properties of the ultra-mundane particles? This I
could only guess at. Or elementary fermions? The quantization and
properties of fermions are determined by the equilibrium of the quantum
vacuum.
| See Ilja Schmelzer concepts
|
| http://ilja-schmelzer.de/GET/
|
| I have always thought that matter is a defect of some sort, just haven't
| figured it out. Ilja may well be on the right track.
Ilja is on it pretty good. I have finally learned enough to maybe be able
to give his concepts another good study. I just don't agree with his
concept of absolute time. To me, time is simply the result of comparing two
or more motions. It is purely relative. But there could be absolute space.
However, it is totally inconsequential. The space that counts is the one
being defined by the ultra-mundane particles.
| >|> ... or whatever for the tiny quantum objects that make all of this.
| >|> Especially if they are in fact defining spacetime. Do they have some
| >|> kind of form? Maybe. Do they have a tiny mass. Maybe?
| >|> I actually got to thinking more about this tiny mass situation that
you
| >|> mention and if we make a gravitation coupling "constant" like so,
| >|>
| >|> G*mass^2/hbar*c = alpha_G, very small dimensionless number in cgs
units,
| >|>
| >|> and I think I have seen somewhere that the relative strength of
gravity
| >|> to strong charge is 10^-42, when plugging that in, we get a mass
quantum
| >|> that is about 12 MeV/c^2. Way too big. If we plugin 1 eV/c^2, we get
about
| >|> 10^-57 for the coupling "constant". Anyways, we can see here that
| >|> vacuum charge is once again involved in a coupling constant. The real
deal for
| >|> gravity maybe should be G*m_q^2 with m_q being a mass quantum. I am
| >|> still trying to figure out why you come close to what the electron
neutrino
| >|> mass might be in your derivation. Well, we know if the ultra-mundane
| >|> particles have a tiny mass, it for sure should be less than the
electron neutrino.
| >|
| >| Well, the the fluid model of Maxwell charge results from the
compressibility
| >| of the medium. The medium's characteristic Action parameter defines
this
| >| and all else. This Planck's Constant is the most fundamental (which
in turn
| >| depends on the aetheron's intrinic momentum, thus c...) of the
medium's
| >| properties.
| >|
| >|> If you plugin Planck mass above, alpha_G becomes 1 and we know that
ain't
| >|> right.
| >|>
| >|> Well, maybe they are little hard balls with a tiny tiny mass. But if
they
| >|> are, I still think they are going to be string-like and cloud-like
when
| >|> "cranked up".
| >|
| >| Faraday/Maxwell/Helmholtz/Kelvin's vortices :)
| >
| > Sure, but apply what quantum theory is giving us clues about to the
vortices
| > then it is not a stretch to see that only one ultra-mundane particle is
| > required for elementary fermions. The quantum vacuum is what determines
| > which ultra-mundane particles can be which elementary fermions. There
is no
| > difference between a "bare" electron and a bare quark or bare neutrino.
The
| > geometry of the vacuum coupled oscillators determines what they can be.
It
| > is not too hard in this picture to see why electrons are stable. If I
can
| > get the exact geometry figured out then it shouldn't be too hard to show
why
| > protons are stable.
|
| So, in your model you need different particles to get different fermions.
I
| don't think that meets Ockham's Razor. But, I have no model for matter,
Ilja
| seems to though.
No, the contrary. The same bare entity (ultra-mundane) makes everything
including spacetime. It is basically similar to your concept but with much
less aetherons due to the fact that spacetime is actually being defined at
that level. If spacetime is being defined, then how can we talk about
dimensions? Spacetime (ours) is emergent from the interactions of the bare
entities. However, my model definitely requires the concept of dual space
otherwise matter becomes holes in the vacuum equilibrim. With the dual
space concept, the holes go to the other space which is most likely 4D.
But, this allows for the reality of virtual particles as a bonus. The other
space is just a sea of the coupled oscillators (the aether if you wish).
Each oscillator is a single ultra-mundane particle cranked up to the speed
of light or near it if they have a tiny tiny mass. In two of our
dimensions, it is like a string loop. In 3D, it is like a "cloud".
Basically we have a "field" that is being produced by a single entity
because it is going at the speed of c or near to it. However, this only
works because of the interactions between all the ultra-mundane particles
and the resulting equilibrium their combined action makes. The vacuum has a
huge amount of energy in it but only elementary fermions can "extract" this
energy effectively. It is where their so-called "self-energy" comes from.
Here is a link to the paper we just presented to the Physical Congress 2004
in St. Petersburg. I was trying to get it reformatted more to the APS style
before I gave out the link for it but maybe it will help you to see better
what we are describing. Actually, some of these ideas came from you
directly or indirectly. I just tried to match up more to what clues quantum
theory might be giving us.
http://vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
http://vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
PDF or postscript. Pick your poision.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
05 Sep 2004 11:55:57 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 22:06:47 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:63tkj012r02ds51hpeeq5hm01lbb2amu3i@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 12:04:31 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[Snip...]
| >| I think in terms of each quantum object is made up of a sea of the
| >| ultra-mundane aetherons. The aetherons could be 'hard' or ultimately
| >| 'soft'. The need only be nearly perfectly elastic and contain no sub
| >| media (fields) of their own.
| >
| > Yes I know that is what you think and IMHO, this is where you are going
| > wrong. I have been trying to show you that an elementary quantum object
| > doesn't need to be a "sea of the ultra-mundane aetherons". It only
| > requires one to make an elementary quantum object in conjunction with
the
| > interaction with and equilibrium of the quantum vacuum.
|
| And the quantization & properties come from where?
The quantization and properties of the ultra-mundane particles? This I
could only guess at.
Every property you constrain the funadamental property with complicates
the basis. There must be unanswered (and unanswerable) questions at the
bottom, but the simpler you make the basis the better. Yes, I meant the
aetheron...
Or elementary fermions? The quantization and properties of fermions are
determined by the equilibrium of the quantum vacuum.
Then define the nature & origin of the quantum vacuum. For me, the vortex
lattice is this... Vortices MUST BE composite objects.
| See Ilja Schmelzer concepts
|
| http://ilja-schmelzer.de/GET/
|
| I have always thought that matter is a defect of some sort, just haven't
| figured it out. Ilja may well be on the right track.
Ilja is on it pretty good. I have finally learned enough to maybe be able
to give his concepts another good study. I just don't agree with his
concept of absolute time. To me, time is simply the result of comparing two
or more motions. It is purely relative. But there could be absolute space.
However, it is totally inconsequential. The space that counts is the one
being defined by the ultra-mundane particles.
On this we agree. I think I've told you my concept of time. To me, time is
the observation of the rate thing are changing. In a truly frozen system
(no energy/motion) time is a meaningless term.
[Snip...]
|>| Faraday/Maxwell/Helmholtz/Kelvin's vortices :)
|>
|> Sure, but apply what quantum theory is giving us clues about to the
|> vortices then it is not a stretch to see that only one ultra-mundane
|> particle is required for elementary fermions. The quantum vacuum is
|> what determines which ultra-mundane particles can be which elementary
|> fermions. There is no difference between a "bare" electron and a bare
|> quark or bare neutrino. The geometry of the vacuum coupled oscillators
|> determines what they can be. It is not too hard in this picture to see
|> why electrons are stable. If I can get the exact geometry figured out
|> then it shouldn't be too hard to show why protons are stable.
|
| So, in your model you need different particles to get different fermions.
| I don't think that meets Ockham's Razor. But, I have no model for matter,
| Ilja seems to though.
No, the contrary. The same bare entity (ultra-mundane) makes everything
including spacetime.
Would that be a single ring vortex?
It is basically similar to your concept but with much less aetherons due
to the fact that spacetime is actually being defined at that level. If
spacetime is being defined, then how can we talk about dimensions?
Spacetime (ours) is emergent from the interactions of the bare entities.
Yes but that, as I see it, is a result of vortex lattice interactions
for Matter/QM/EM. Gravity is the result if single aetheron interactions
passing through the imposed lattice structures. Since it (gravity) isn't
ring to ring interactions its behavior & characteristics are fundamentally
different and more primal.
However, my model definitely requires the concept of dual space
otherwise matter becomes holes in the vacuum equilibrim. With the
dual space concept, the holes go to the other space which is most
likely 4D.
You've just shuffled off you problem to another ad hoc concept, not
resolved it...
But, this allows for the reality of virtual particles as a bonus. The
other space is just a sea of the coupled oscillators (the aether if
you wish). Each oscillator is a single ultra-mundane particle cranked
up to the speed of light or near it if they have a tiny tiny mass.
It seems that this answers my question above, your particle IS a single
ring vortex entity. But, if so, these MUST consist of other, even smaller
somethings...
In two of our dimensions, it is like a string loop. In 3D, it is like
a "cloud".
Like the torroidal ring donuts depected in SciAm?
Basically we have a "field" that is being produced by a single entity
because it is going at the speed of c or near to it. However, this
only works because of the interactions between all the ultra-mundane
particles and the resulting equilibrium their combined action makes.
The vacuum has a huge amount of energy in it but only elementary fermions
can "extract" this energy effectively. It is where their so-called
"self-energy" comes from. Here is a link to the paper we just presented
to the Physical Congress 2004 in St. Petersburg. I was trying to get it
reformatted more to the APS style before I gave out the link for it but
maybe it will help you to see better what we are describing. Actually,
some of these ideas came from you directly or indirectly. I just tried
to match up more to what clues quantum theory might be giving us.
That is what cooperative efforts are suppose to be about. I don't have
to agree with your interpretation or you with mine. If we can actually
discuss (and not dismiss/deride) them. From your paper referenced below
it does that your spin matrix cell is a ring vortex. That you envision
smaller, more energetic ones linked to the apex regions of the hex is,
to say the least, fascinating... I like you ideas of the aether lattice
matrix. So, after all, we ARE all in, "The Matrix" :) Now, who's the
Architect? :>
http://vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
http://vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
PDF or postscript. Pick your poision.
PDF everytime :)
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
05 Sep 2004 02:23:28 PM |
|
|
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:9kdmj0l249nijilq2309pk5sbfahq15u96@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 22:06:47 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com>
wrote:
|
| >"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
| >news:63tkj012r02ds51hpeeq5hm01lbb2amu3i@4ax.com...
| >| On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 12:04:31 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com>
| >wrote:
|
| [Snip...]
|
| >| >| I think in terms of each quantum object is made up of a sea of the
| >| >| ultra-mundane aetherons. The aetherons could be 'hard' or
ultimately
| >| >| 'soft'. The need only be nearly perfectly elastic and contain no
sub
| >| >| media (fields) of their own.
| >| >
| >| > Yes I know that is what you think and IMHO, this is where you are
going
| >| > wrong. I have been trying to show you that an elementary quantum
object
| >| > doesn't need to be a "sea of the ultra-mundane aetherons". It only
| >| > requires one to make an elementary quantum object in conjunction with
| >the
| >| > interaction with and equilibrium of the quantum vacuum.
| >|
| >| And the quantization & properties come from where?
| >
| > The quantization and properties of the ultra-mundane particles? This I
| > could only guess at.
|
| Every property you constrain the funadamental property with complicates
| the basis. There must be unanswered (and unanswerable) questions at the
| bottom, but the simpler you make the basis the better. Yes, I meant the
| aetheron...
Agree. This is a tough nut to crack for sure. We have some clues though.
One of which you might actually provide. Originally I thought they would be
or could be massless. But simple analysis of a gravitational coupling
constant indicates there might be a very very tiny mass quantum. Your
calculation of this could be in the ball park. Another good clue is from
the mass of the top quark. Why does the mass for elementary fermions stop
at the top quark? This is way below the Planck mass scale. The vacuum
charge cell concept does conform somewhat to the idea that there are only
three generations of fermions. For the total charge of all the positive or
negative componets gives us sqrt(hbar*c) ~= 11.706e where e is the charge of
a positron. I don't know the exact mix of vacuum fermions yet but it seems
that if we had a fourth generation of fermions, 11.706e would be too low.
So it seems that the "aetheron" would or might have a property that gives us
this top quark mass limit.
| > Or elementary fermions? The quantization and properties of fermions are
| > determined by the equilibrium of the quantum vacuum.
|
| Then define the nature & origin of the quantum vacuum. For me, the
vortex
| lattice is this... Vortices MUST BE composite objects.
|
| >| See Ilja Schmelzer concepts
| >|
| >| http://ilja-schmelzer.de/GET/
| >|
| >| I have always thought that matter is a defect of some sort, just
haven't
| >| figured it out. Ilja may well be on the right track.
| >
| > Ilja is on it pretty good. I have finally learned enough to maybe be
able
| > to give his concepts another good study. I just don't agree with his
| > concept of absolute time. To me, time is simply the result of comparing
two
| > or more motions. It is purely relative. But there could be absolute
space.
| > However, it is totally inconsequential. The space that counts is the
one
| > being defined by the ultra-mundane particles.
|
| On this we agree. I think I've told you my concept of time. To me, time
is
| the observation of the rate thing are changing. In a truly frozen system
| (no energy/motion) time is a meaningless term.
|
| [Snip...]
|
| >|>| Faraday/Maxwell/Helmholtz/Kelvin's vortices :)
| >|>
| >|> Sure, but apply what quantum theory is giving us clues about to the
| >|> vortices then it is not a stretch to see that only one ultra-mundane
| >|> particle is required for elementary fermions. The quantum vacuum is
| >|> what determines which ultra-mundane particles can be which elementary
| >|> fermions. There is no difference between a "bare" electron and a bare
| >|> quark or bare neutrino. The geometry of the vacuum coupled
oscillators
| >|> determines what they can be. It is not too hard in this picture to
see
| >|> why electrons are stable. If I can get the exact geometry figured out
| >|> then it shouldn't be too hard to show why protons are stable.
| >|
| >| So, in your model you need different particles to get different
fermions.
| >| I don't think that meets Ockham's Razor. But, I have no model for
matter,
| >| Ilja seems to though.
| >
| > No, the contrary. The same bare entity (ultra-mundane) makes everything
| > including spacetime.
|
| Would that be a single ring vortex?
Basically yes. However in the vacuum at equilibrium a single ring vortex
has to be two "counter-rotating" entities. I say counter-rotating for the
lack of a better expression, but that idea should be sufficient for now.
Something that you mention and I agree with. But there is probably more to
it than just counter-rotating. For instance, in the "string" that say
represents an electron, there could be also a flow in the string itself. So
you have a double looped string that is rotating as a unit plus a "current"
in the string itself. This current in the string is the aetheron entity
itself going at c or near to c. Now if the entity is somewhat like current
string theory has it, then we have tiny strings making bigger strings. From
our perspective. But current string theory tries to give different
properties to the aetherons at a small scale. I don't think it works like
that. Well, they are trying to model strictly after the Standard Model
without the quantum vacuum as a medium. At least it seems that way to me.
We (Inopin and I) are trying to model after the Standard Model with the
quantum vacuum as a medium.
| > It is basically similar to your concept but with much less aetherons due
| > to the fact that spacetime is actually being defined at that level. If
| > spacetime is being defined, then how can we talk about dimensions?
| > Spacetime (ours) is emergent from the interactions of the bare entities.
|
| Yes but that, as I see it, is a result of vortex lattice interactions
| for Matter/QM/EM. Gravity is the result if single aetheron interactions
| passing through the imposed lattice structures. Since it (gravity) isn't
| ring to ring interactions its behavior & characteristics are
fundamentally
| different and more primal.
|
| > However, my model definitely requires the concept of dual space
| > otherwise matter becomes holes in the vacuum equilibrim. With the
| > dual space concept, the holes go to the other space which is most
| > likely 4D.
|
| You've just shuffled off you problem to another ad hoc concept, not
| resolved it...
Well, it does resolve the problem of real matter having to be holes in our
space. It is not so quite "ad hoc" in comparison with other clues that we
have. Especially virtual particles as I mention below. Plus in the spin
matrix model, without dual space, whenever an electron is created say by
neutron decay, a positron would have to be created. And we know that
doesn't happen. Dual space resolves that problem. The "positron" simple
remains in the other space as a "less than virtual" particle. That is what
is basically new about the dual space concept. We can have "less than
virtual" particles. IOW, let's say that an electron and positron are just a
single aetheron each in a configuration that the geometry of the quantum
vacuum is determining that defines them as such. When the e+e- annihilate,
do the aetherons disappear forever? I wouldn't think so. Where do they go?
They have to go to the other space of dual space. They become less than
virtual by nulling each other out. So in my spin matrix, one of the larger
votices is this nulled out combination. Pretty much just like you are
saying about the counter rotations. To us macroscopically, it looks like
nothing is there. But another elementary fermion can "see" that there
really is two things there. The connection from our space to the other
space is via elementary fermions. EM radiation is simply the "less than
virtual" elements being excited to virtual status as it flows thru. There
are experiments being built to see if e+e- pairs can be produced from the
vacuum using only a strong enough electric field. If this works, then IMHO,
the dual space concept has to be correct.
| > But, this allows for the reality of virtual particles as a bonus. The
| > other space is just a sea of the coupled oscillators (the aether if
| > you wish). Each oscillator is a single ultra-mundane particle cranked
| > up to the speed of light or near it if they have a tiny tiny mass.
|
| It seems that this answers my question above, your particle IS a single
| ring vortex entity. But, if so, these MUST consist of other, even
smaller
| somethings...
Yeah, for sure it is the tired old concept of "turtles all the way down". I
don't see how to get around that. You just have to get to a point and say
we are going to stop here for awhile until we get more experimental
evidence. But the important thing I am trying to express to you is that due
to "relativistic" effects, a *single* "aetheron" in conjunction with its
interactions with the rest of the aetherons, can produce a vortex. At least
this seems to fit to what quantum theory is giving us clues about.
| > In two of our dimensions, it is like a string loop. In 3D, it is like
| > a "cloud".
|
| Like the torroidal ring donuts depected in SciAm?
Not exactly like that. Much more complex. Something that I was not able to
show properly in the spin matrix yet.
| > Basically we have a "field" that is being produced by a single entity
| > because it is going at the speed of c or near to it. However, this
| > only works because of the interactions between all the ultra-mundane
| > particles and the resulting equilibrium their combined action makes.
| > The vacuum has a huge amount of energy in it but only elementary
fermions
| > can "extract" this energy effectively. It is where their so-called
| > "self-energy" comes from. Here is a link to the paper we just presented
| > to the Physical Congress 2004 in St. Petersburg. I was trying to get it
| > reformatted more to the APS style before I gave out the link for it but
| > maybe it will help you to see better what we are describing. Actually,
| > some of these ideas came from you directly or indirectly. I just tried
| > to match up more to what clues quantum theory might be giving us.
|
| That is what cooperative efforts are suppose to be about. I don't have
| to agree with your interpretation or you with mine. If we can actually
| discuss (and not dismiss/deride) them. From your paper referenced below
| it does that your spin matrix cell is a ring vortex. That you envision
| smaller, more energetic ones linked to the apex regions of the hex is,
| to say the least, fascinating... I like you ideas of the aether lattice
| matrix. So, after all, we ARE all in, "The Matrix" :) Now, who's the
| Architect? :>
The architect is simply how all the aetherons end up interacting. The
problem now is who's the architect of the aetherons. ;-) Well, as I
mention, the spin matrix is naive. I don't have the complete 3D solution
for the geometry yet. Probably because it needs to be a 4D solution. You
have to imagine that there are vortices going thru these vortices linking
everything together. It ends up being a geometrical nightmare. Especially
when you try to put layers together. Right now I am investigating truncated
octahedrons and other geometrical solids that can fill space and leave no
gaps. But those might have to be a 3D projection of something that might
really be 4D. Akkk!
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
31 Aug 2004 08:41:20 PM |
|
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
Hey Freddi, :) Check out also "The String Theory Landscape" Pgs 79-87
Note them-thar vortices (Ring torroids)...
Those vortices and toroids etc are branes in a multi-dimensional
manifold. It is all very abstract and not what an aether freak would
call physical. By the way, string theory eludes testing. It is nice
mathematics but is it a scientific theory?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
02 Sep 2004 12:09:26 AM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:2pknm5FlrqarU1@uni-berlin.de...
|
|
| Paul Stowe wrote:
|
| >
| > Hey Freddi, :) Check out also "The String Theory Landscape" Pgs 79-87
| > Note them-thar vortices (Ring torroids)...
|
| Those vortices and toroids etc are branes in a multi-dimensional
| manifold. It is all very abstract and not what an aether freak would
| call physical. By the way, string theory eludes testing. It is nice
| mathematics but is it a scientific theory?
Well, it could have been had they not tried so hard to model it exactly
after the Standard Model. Plus they are chasing the Planck length which
doesn't make sense. Spacetime starts to get "funny" even at atomic
distances (seen those pictures of atoms?). But it could be that tiny
strings are making bigger (longer) strings.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Baird" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
07 Sep 2004 09:04:09 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:41:20 -0400, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote:
Paul Stowe wrote:
Hey Freddi, :) Check out also "The String Theory Landscape" Pgs 79-87
Note them-thar vortices (Ring torroids)...
Those vortices and toroids etc are branes in a multi-dimensional
manifold. It is all very abstract and not what an aether freak would
call physical. By the way, string theory eludes testing. It is nice
mathematics but is it a scientific theory?
Bob Kolker
Theorist: " String theory is great! It can predict anything! "
Experimenter, cautiously: " Oh-kay ... here's an experimental outline,
for something that I'm currently working on, can string theory really
predict the outcome? "
Theorist: " No problemo ... now, what's the result that you want it to
predict? "
=Erk= (Eric Baird)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ueb" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
02 Sep 2004 05:20:29 PM |
|
|
robert j. kolker wrote:
Paul Stowe wrote:
Hey Freddi, :) Check out also "The String Theory Landscape" Pgs 79-87
Note them-thar vortices (Ring torroids)...
Those vortices and toroids etc are branes in a multi-dimensional
manifold. It is all very abstract and not what an aether freak would
call physical. By the way, string theory eludes testing.
I can tell you how that runs. String theory uses 10 or more dimensions.
As one can read in a textbook on Riemannian geometry like Eisenhart,
one can do all in the four real dimensions, what he/she likes, with
these 10 or more dimensions. Do you see the trick ? Thus one can
undisturbedly construct any nice structures that fit on e.g. particles.
Is that not nice ? ;-/ ;-\
It is nice
mathematics but is it a scientific theory?
Clearly no. Because it is not falsifiable.
Bob Kolker
Ulrich
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
23 Aug 2004 05:45:51 PM |
|
|
Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
A Century of Einstein
Scientific American has covered Einstein's theories--and the refinements and
reactions to them--ever since scientists began to grasp the import of his
landmark 1905 papers. Read on for a sampling of our reports, some by leading
physicists of their times
By Daniel C. Schlenoff
It took several years for Scientific American, and mainstream physics for
that matter, to start mulling over the radical proposals Albert Einstein
expounded in 1905. His repudiation of the intuitive understanding of the
cosmos was hard to accept:
"In 1905, came a fundamental and (as the future historian will probably say)
an epoch-making contribution in the shape of an unassuming and dry-looking
dissertation, 'Concerning the Electro-dynamics of Moving Bodies,' by A.
Einstein, a Swiss professor of physics. It appeared in the Annalen der
Physik, the German counterpart of our Philosophical Magazine. It created no
sensation at the time. It was hardly noticed. Yet, at the present time, you
cannot open a journal devoted to physics without finding some fresh
contribution to the ever-increasing literature on the subject: Einstein's
Principle of Relativity.
--E. E. Fournier D'Albe"
Scientific American Supplement,
November 11, 1911
"But is the 'Principle of Relativity' true? That is for experiment to
decide. Its postulates have been and are now being pursued by the relentless
logic of mathematics, and they must stand or fall as the deductions thus
reached agree or conflict with experimental evidence. Just now, however, the
'Principle of Relativity' seems to be irresistibly fascinating to
mathematicians, but equally abhorrent to that host of physicists who can no
more conceive of time as a function of velocity than they can imagine space
to be curved or picture for themselves a fourth dimension."
Scientific American,
June 8, 1912
From Scientific American
http://cl.extm.us/?fe951d707365067971-fe2a1672776c0378751176
Invariance and equality of frames aren't synonymous.
Invariance is obtained as such:
(v1 - v2) = k
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
23 Aug 2004 06:10:50 PM |
|
|
RP wrote:
Invariance and equality of frames aren't synonymous.
Invariance is obtained as such:
(v1 - v2) = k
This makes no sense, whatsoever. Invariance, means invariance with
respect to a group of transformations. Where is the group?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: A Century of Einstein |
| | | | |
